It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 123
74
<< 120  121  122    124  125  126 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2015 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
order of magnitude: en.wikipedia.org...

1 X 10^-9th. thats a nanogram. and Several means "more than 2 but not many."

so three to maybe five orders of magnitude is what we are looking for...

they differ by a factor of 1000 or more.

does that mean 1000 nanograms?
Did you read about the AIMSTAR and ICAN II propulsion studies at Penn State?
All of the antiprotons created at Fermilab’s Tevatron particle accelerator add up to only 15 nanograms. Those made at CERN amount to about 1 nanogram. At DESY in Germany, approximately 2 nanograms of positrons have been produced to date.
If all the antimatter ever made by humans were annihilated at once, the energy produced wouldn’t even be enough to boil a cup of tea. Now the longest we have been able to hold it as far as I know is 30 min before it comes in contact with something and that was at Cern.


The article that caused this discussion says they have upped the production rate possible by several orders of magnitude. (apparently that is from the nanogram base line)

That means to me that they can make the quantities necessary to do some minimal forms of antimatter involved propulsion such as antimatter catalyzed fission and antimatter catalyzed microfusion. These forms of propulsion use tiny amounts of antimatter to keep a fission or fusion reaction going. they only need a few nanograms to do either mission. and thats to the outer solar system and to the 10K AU point.

it may not be enough to boil a cup of coffee but it is enough to kickstart fission and fusion that can plasmify that coffee etc.


No can't even power a light bulb remember were talking the energy used to create them far outweighs the energy they produce. Now the reason we can't do fusion is pressure we can't maintain the pressures needed.

So let's say we used antimatter to kick off a fusion reaction. What we would get is a neutron bomb as the pressure would be to low to hold them. If we can get and maintain the pressure we don't need anti matter we can just start a fusion reaction. So what I'm telling you is simply if we could create the conditions necessary to use anti matter to start a fusion reaction we wouldn't need the antimatter.
Did you read about the AIMSTAR and ICAN II propulsion studies at Penn State?


Yes I have and it uses antimatter to create a fission reaction using deuterium and helium-3 along with a small amount of uranium. Again same problem 1 blast uses a billion or so of anti protons. These anti protons create a nuclear explosion. Do this over and over and you have trust. But at a billion protons per blast we haven't even made enoought to do it once much less the thousands it would take to get up to speed.

The reason for this was simple carrying enough fuel to get to another star would be huge with this it would fit in 1 truck. It was not a break thru in propulsion it was chosen because it basically has the lowest fuel consumption for creating multiple nuclear blasts I'm quick succession. And to be honest its survivability is questionable. Most likely work a couple of times and be to damaged and blow up.
The article i linked to at the beginning of this tangent was about a breakthrough in antimatter production that increases it several orders of magnitude with the promise of even greater increases in production using higher excitation states of positronium. The increased yield on the face of it seems to be enough for the ICAN or AIMSTAR engine.




posted on May, 23 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

No, u!

What does Mr LCD tell you? Have you heard it yet?


Ok, I will play.

You know more than me. You are smarter than me.

Please, oh great one, tell me how your knowledge of LCD, proves that you know all a human can possibly know about light.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Please, oh great one, tell me how your knowledge of LCD, proves that you know all a human can possibly know about light.


How does an LCD work?



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Please, oh great one, tell me how your knowledge of LCD, proves that you know all a human can possibly know about light.


How does an LCD work?


You are the one who knows, please, as one can either use their knowledge for good or bad; use it for the good, that is making me wiser



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
This should give you a hint. The video shows the person looking at a modified LCD display, where the screen appears blank.

Amazing Secret Monitor!


When the person viewing puts on their polarized glasses, they can see the display normally, but nobody else can see it unless they are also wearing the polarized glasses.

More clues about how it works can be seen in the extra footage:


No post can possibly have a better justification for this emoticon than this one:





edit on 23-5-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Here's some advice.
If you're out boating and using a GPS plotter with an LCD display. Don't wear polarized sunglasses unless you want to be tilting your head and looking like a confused doggy.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 04:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Heres a video that shows you how the monitor works.




posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

LOL.

All those different things placed in between the light source and the eye; and you think this is you showing me evidence that you know what light is fundamentally?



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Do any of you know how I could successfully contact the smartest most passionate theoretical physicist in the closest real physical proximity to where I live?

I am done playing games here with you all, I am ready to work with genius to solve problems. You were something of a nice dull stone to sharpen my mind against, but in theory could have been nearly infinitely better.

Do you know of any theoretical physicists who are actually concerned with comprehending a large range of problems in theoretical physics and attempting to solve them?

If I were able to speak with a very smart and passionate one in front of a black board for 5 hours, we would make progress in physics guaranteed.

If you take this as a joke, you are a joke. But whatever makes you feel good for a few seconds I guess right. I am right, you are wrong. Help me if you can, if you truly care about physics itself.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

LOL.

All those different things placed in between the light source and the eye; and you think this is you showing me evidence that you know what light is fundamentally?


It's telling you something. Why does that work the way it does, should be an immediate question.

And right off the bat, it tells you something about there not being an aether that EM propagates in. Right there, in one handy demo.
edit on 24-5-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

The self-delusion is strong in this one.




posted on May, 24 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
If I were able to speak with a very smart and passionate one in front of a black board for 5 hours, we would make progress in physics guaranteed.
You would conclude that none of them are very smart because they won't tell you what you want to hear. If you really want to make a contribution to physics, get a PhD in physics by writing your PhD thesis about something close to mainstream. Then once you have your PhD, publish your advances in the field even if they aren't mainstream.


I am right, you are wrong.
The first thing I notice about physicists is that they tend to say "I don't know" a lot, especially when asked a question outside their particular specialty. The reason is that they recognize that another physicist who specializes in the branch of physics dealing with the topic of the question may know more about the topic than they do. It's kind of ironic to hear the people who know the most saying "I don't know" and the people who know the least say "I know and I'm right and everybody else is wrong", kind of like the graph GetHyped posted.

Feynman was happy with QED in the sense the model made good predictions and he won the Nobel prize for it, but he never considered it "ultimate truth" and made comments suggesting he'd rather see a model without renormalization. He didn't think he knew the ultimate truth about anything and I'm not sure how you got the impression physicists think they know any ultimate truths. We can describe the experiments performed, the results observed, and how consistent or inconsistent the observed results are with models used to predict the results.

If you don't have either a model to better predict experimental results, or a new experiment which will show there is something wrong with our current models, how do you expect to advance physics? As I said earlier, quantum mechanics and the behavior of photons you're asking about doesn't seem to follow from a philosophical approach (which seems to be your orientation).



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam


And right off the bat, it tells you something about there not being an aether that EM propagates in. Right there, in one handy demo.


How are photons created then?

If you have a machine that is just a motor and a robot arm with hand and fingers at the end, and the fingers can hold in between them 1 electron;

And the robot hand starts moving up and down;

Thus, the electron is moving up and down;

Photons will be detected surrounding this event?

Where are the photons coming from?

Before the machine is turned on, and the hand starts moving up and down;

Is the electron trapped in between the fingers, emitting photons? (if so, not as many as when it moves up and down?)

But as the machine is turned on, more photons are emitted when the electron is moved up and down?

Where are the extra photons coming from?

At first there is truly nothing? And then the electron moves amidst nothing? and then photons are created?



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

I am more important and valuable than a 100 lives of your life lived.

Feel how you ought feel if this statement was true.

edit on 24-5-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

There are so many problems in physics, there are so many PHD physicists not solving them.

Lets be scientific and try another approach. I can solve some problems in physics, with a 5+ hour conversation in front of a blackboard, with a very smart and passionate theoretical physicist who was interested in a large variety of fundamental problems.
edit on 24-5-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

I'll take "Dunning-Kruger" for $500, Alex.

Your threads on physicsforums.com follow exactly the same pattern. You ask a question, you get an answer, you cannot reconcile that answer with your philosophical expectations so emphatically state that the answer is wrong. You are steered towards reading the necessary precursory material, you refuse to do so, your thread gets locked. Rinse and repeat.

When everyone else appears to be the problem, the problem is usually closer to home.
edit on 24-5-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

The robot arm is not causing anything to happen. In fact one electron nothings going to happen. No light no photons nothing. Now pass that electron through an em field in something like anew undulator and than you get photons. It's also called a wiggler. So you have an idea it works better than a robotic arm.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

PS just like our monitor polarization is important.
edit on 5/24/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: ImaFungi

I'll take "Dunning-Kruger" for $500, Alex.

Your threads on physicsforums.com follow exactly the same pattern. You ask a question, you get an answer, you cannot reconcile that answer with your philosophical expectations so emphatically state that the answer is wrong. You are steered towards reading the necessary precursory material, you refuse to do so, your thread gets locked. Rinse and repeat.

When everyone else appears to be the problem, the problem is usually closer to home.


What is, Failure of an argument?

I maybe went on that site for a week 3 years ago?

Unlike you I have progressed tremendously in that span of time.

I have gained more intelligence in the past 2 months than you have in that time.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Did you just say that;

One electron;

Given momentum;

Does not create photons?



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi




I have gained more intelligence in the past 2 months than you have in that time.

How have you gained intelligence? How many IQ points?
I know that gaining knowledge is very doable.
edit on 5/24/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 120  121  122    124  125  126 >>

log in

join